DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgment
The Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/23/2024 has been received and placed of record. Accordingly, claims 11-14 have been cancelled and claims 1-10 and 15-24 are pending in the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 15-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopal et al (US 2016/0234746; art cited by applicant) in view of Srivastava et al (US 2019/0150042) or Dhanapal et al (US 2017/0034745).
Regarding independent claim 1, Gopal teaches a method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving signaling, from a serving cell of a first radio access technology (RAT), indicating priority levels (figs. 4, 6 and 7, [0034]-[0035], [0047] and [0055], LTE corresponds to first RAT); performing idle measurements for frequency channel, while camped on a serving cell of a second RAT (figs. 4, 6 and 7, [0034]-[0035], [0047], TD-SCDMA corresponds to serving cell of a second cell); setting cell reselection thresholds to apply to the idle measurements for the frequency, based on a relative priority of the serving cell of the second RAT ([0049], [0055], setting cell reselection thresholds for reselection from LTE to another RAT); and performing cell reselection procedures based on the idle measurements for the frequencies and the determined cell reselection thresholds (figs. 6-7, [0048], [0055]). Gopal fails to teach the signaling includes a first list of frequencies associated with the first RAT. However, signaling includes a first list of frequencies associated with a RAT is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. For example, Srivastava or Dhanapal, from the same field of endeavor, teaches such signaling. See Srivastava: [0059] and [0064] or Dhanapal: [0050] and [0058]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gopal by employing the teachings as taught by Srivastava or Dhanapal in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 15 and 24, the claims is the corresponding apparatus claims and recite similar subject matter to claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claim 1. Gopal further teaches the method steps can be performed by a processor to execute the instructions stored on non-transitory computer-readable medium. See [0056], [0059] and [0062].
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 16, Gopal as modified by Srivastava or Dhanapal further teaches storing cell reselection parameters for the first RAT, wherein setting the cell reselection thresholds comprises setting the cell reselection thresholds to either: i) stored cell reselection parameters for the first RAT or (ii) cell reselection parameters for the serving cell of the second RAT. See Gopal: [0032], [0038], [0046] and [0049].
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 17, Gopal as modified by Srivastava or Dhanapal further teaches wherein setting the cell reselection thresholds comprises setting the cell reselection thresholds, for a given frequency, based on the stored cell reselection parameters for the first RAT, if the priority for that given frequency is higher than the priority for the serving cell of the second RAT. See [0038], [0043], [0045] and [0051].
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 18, Gopal as modified by Srivastava or Dhanapal further teaches wherein setting the cell reselection thresholds comprises setting the cell reselection thresholds, for a given frequency, based on the cell reselection parameters for the serving cell of the second RAT, if the priority for that given frequency is lower than the priority for the serving cell of the second RAT.
See [0038], [0043], [0045] and [0051].
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 19, Gopal as modified by Srivastava or Dhanapal further teaches setting cell reselection thresholds, for one or more frequencies associated with the first RAT that are not indicated in the first list, to predefined threshold values. See [0038], [0043], [0045] and [0051].
Regarding dependent claims 6 and 20, Gopal as modified by Srivastava or Dhanapal further teaches wherein setting the cell reselection thresholds comprises setting the cell reselection thresholds, for a given frequency, to predefined threshold values, if the priority for that given frequency is higher than the priority for the serving cell of the second RAT. See [0038], [0043], [0045] and [0051].
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 21, Gopal as modified by Srivastava or Dhanapal further teaches wherein the signaling comprises a list of frequencies to prioritize in the first RAT. See Srivastava: [0059] and [0064] or Dhanapal: [0050] and [0058].
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 22, Gopal as modified by Srivastava or Dhanapal further teaches wherein the signaling comprises a list of frequencies to deprioritize in the first RAT. See Srivastava: [0059] and [0064] or Dhanapal: [0050] and [0058].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References Huang et al (US 2011/0165909), Martin et al (US 2013/0084866), Song et al (US 2016/0295471), Pakniat et al (US 2016/0373978) are cited because they are pertinent to the method and apparatus for cell reselection. However, none of the cited references teaches or suggests the further arrangements as recited in the dependent claims 9-10 and 23.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON NGUYEN VO whose telephone number is (571) 272-3018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00 to 6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth N Vanderpuye, can be reached on 571-272-3078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DON N VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights